5/20/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•Alternatives 600f'101 3' Because of its land use permitting responsibilities, the county has an interest in preventing or minimizing land use incompatibilities. Additionally, the county is charged with protecting the general health and welfare of its citizens. For these reasons, the county has an interest in mitigating impacts along agricultural/ residential borders. To mitigate those impacts, staff has identified the following alternatives: • Physical Separation; • Physical Barrier; and • Restricting Agricultural Activity. Physical Separation In Indian River County, the burden ofproviding physical separation currently falls mainly on residential development. Through required setbacks and the site plan approval process, the county encourages the physical separation of residential and agricultural uses. To meet those requirements, residential developers often design living areas away from agriculture, while providing required open space and stormwater retention areas where residential development abuts agriculture. - Effectiveness Clearly, impacts on adjacent uses decrease as separation distances increase. That relationship in terms of amount of decrease in impacts per increase in separation distance, however, is difficult to quantify. Part of the reason for that is that several factors influence the decrease in impacts. Those factors include topography, climate, wind conditions, and the presence or lack of physical barriers. With respect to mitigating the impacts of agricultural activities on residential uses, there is little difference between a 25 foot and a 150 foot separation distance. Noticeable differences generally begin to occur when separation distances reach 300 feet. Overall, increasing -separation distance is m derat�ffecttve' at - mitigating the impacts of noise and spraying, but has little effect on odors. Additionally, this alternative has little effect_o._the impacts -of -residential uses on agricultural operations. - Costs Because of design and market factors, the costs of the physical separation alternative can only be estimated. This alternative, however, appears to be the most expensive, particularly when applied to single family type of development. Most of that expense is related to the loss of developable land. When the setback is increased to the approximate depth of an average lot or greater, the number of developable lots is usually reduced. The number of lots lost is related to the density of the development and to the percentage of -the --perimeter -of the development bordering active agriculture. For example, the ±46 acre Stonebridge North Subdivision, which borders active. agriculture._ on SO %- of its -.perimeter (two sides), would probably have been reduced" by' 18 lots --(from 108 to 90 ) if residences had to have been -setback 150 feet, rather than 25 feet, from active agriculture. Physical Barrier Walls, fences, berms, and plantings are all used to provide a physical barrier between residential and agricultural areas. The burden of providing the physical barrier could be imposed on either the agricultural operation, the residential project, or both. - Effectiveness Clearly, as the height, width, and density of the physical barrier increase, impacts tend to decrease. .As with separation distance, however, quantifying that relationship is difficult. With respect to mitigating the impacts of agricultural activities on residential uses, experience has shown that this alternative is usually effective at mitigating the impacts of noise, spraying, and odors. In terms of residential impacts on agricultural operations, this method can be fairly effective at reducing trespassing and vandalism. Physical barriers, however, have no mitigating effect on the impacts of caribbean fruit fly host plants. MAY 20, 1997 22 _ M M